felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Date Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:32:53 GMT
On 10/12/09 15:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>    
>> On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>      
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S.
>>> Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org>   wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> ...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my point
>>>> of view the overall issue to decide is:
>>>>
>>>>    1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for
>>>> "courtesy".
>>>>    2. One-file approach for both.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer (2) if this is possible....
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> See also http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y - we had a
>>> similar discussion in Sling a while ago, and the way I read it Roy
>>> clearly states that 1) is the way to go - NOTICE should only be used
>>> for *required* attribution notices.
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice also says "the
>>> remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for *required* third-party
>>> notices" (my emphasis).
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> Again, if that is the case that we are required to do it that way, then
>> we can end the discussion. However, it is not clear what the additional
>> burden it places other than to carry around a longer NOTICE file.
>>      
> To the contrary, the NOTICE file will become considerably smaller since
> it only contains a fraction of what's in there right now.
>
> The additional burden is in deciding whether to include the 3rd party
> inclusion in the NOTICE file or not and adding it there.
>
>    
>> Oh well. Hoops. Jump.
>>
>> I guess we all better start investigating which of our dependencies have
>> legal requirements.
>>      
> I agree that this is a tedious job, but it is a required one -- in so
> far as I understand the processes.
>
>    
>> So, Felix, since you appear to be the expert here :-), perhaps you can
>> help us take the next steps down this road.
>>      
> Well, I would definitely not call me an expert here; I just have had my
> fingers clapped (see above mail reference) ;-)
>
> I would think along these lines: We use your proposed template as the
> basis for future README files. In the NOTICE file we have the required
> four lines (as proposed by Guillaume we might use the Remote Resources
> plugin for this) plus the required attributions only.
>    

So, perhaps someone can help us get set up using the plugin and see that 
it will work for us.

> In the README files we list everything we agree to:
>
>    * Project name
>    * Copyright and license reference
>    * All 3rd party stuff included in the binary/source releases
>    * 3rd party stuff we depend on (like the OSGi API for example)
>    * Links to issue tracking, documentation, mailing lists
>    * ....
>
> This is pretty much free format. And we might even declare the presence
> of the README file a must in any distributable.
>    

I am not looking for more crap^H^H^H^Hinformation to put in the 
README...minimal is best IMO.

-> richard

> The NOTICE file will turn out to be much smaller -- mostly only
> containing the minimal four lines.
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
>    
>> ->  richard
>>
>>      
>>> -Bertrand (from the peanuts gallery)
>>>
>>>        
>>      

Mime
View raw message